/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9226838

>Switch
Pick goat. Switch. Win car.
Pick goat. Switch. Win car.
Pick car. Switch. Win goat.

>Don't switch
Pick goat. Don't switch. Win goat.
Pick goat. Don't switch. Win goat.
Pick car. Don't switch. Win car.

You do the math. And you can keep your shitty meme (((money)))

>>9226838
If you initially pick a goat (2/3 probability), then after monty opens the other goat, switching makes you win, and not switching makes you lose.

If you initially pick a car (1/3 probability), then after monty opens a goat, switching makes you lose, and not switching makes you win.

This means you win when switching with 2/3 probability, compared to 1/3 when not switching.

Send bitcoins to your mom's ass.

>>9226838
There is always three doors and one car, so 1/3.

>>9226847
>>9226848
>>9226853
Read the question more closely

>>9226893
Read bofa

>>9226838
You have 2/3 probability of picking a losing door. When you switch you win.

You have 1/3 of picking a winning door, if you switch you lose.

Or you can think of it this way

[math]P(Win) = P( Switch | Picked Losing Door)P(Picked Losing Door) + P(Don't Switch | Picked Winning Door)P(Picked Winning Door)[/math]

This value is actually 2/3 given switching has an equivalence to coin flipping

but the question is strictly referring to
P(Win | Switch) & P(Win | Don't Switch) or rather, should you switch doors at the last moment?

You find that P(Win | Switch) > P(Win | Don't Switch) for any number of doors. You just switch once when you're presented with the last two doors

>>9226838

i'd pick door 1 and choose the money.

It's 1/2

>>9226847
>wrong
>>9226848
>wrong
>>9226900
>wrong
Read the actual question in the OP

>>9226907
why don't you read bofa

>>9226838
>Monty Hall opens one of the doors randomly and there happens to be a goat on the other side.
>randomly
That's wrong. Fuck you and your money you fucking useless little shit.

>>9226912
Why don't you read bofa deez nuts?

>>9226913
>questions can be wrong
>I just want the original problem because I already know the answer based on someone else's work

MHP threads that subtly change the problem in meaningful ways are my favorite meme.

>>9226922
>bofa deez nuts
BOFA DEEZ NUTS EEEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

(also you're a faggot for not realizing that your change in wording does not change the question)

>>9226838
The correct answer is to stick with your original choice. You have a higher chance of success if you do. Think about it.


If you end up with the hot car, your chance of getting pussy increases since girls are attracted to money.

If you end up with the goat, well, you get a goat. But don't overlook the goat. A goat comes with 2 easily accessible wet holes and a 50% chance at a pussy.


Why would you pass up a guaranteed wet hole for a chance at a pussy?

>>9226925
>(also you're a faggot for not realizing that your change in wording does not change the question)
This is the pinnacle of pseudointellectualism. A retarded little anon is convinced he is smart by "learning" meme problems without actually gaining any understanding. When you take off the training wheels, however, he keeps pumping the pedals with his chubby little legs and all the misplaced confidence of a youtube pickup artist, until he falls hard onto the hard cement and is brought back into reality by the splitting of skin and the squirting of blood, and all the pain of self-realizing his mediocraty had been sheltered from his whole life.

Bask in this anon's shameless display of farcical pseudointellectualism. Soon he will realize what he truly is. A meaningless brick in the wall.

>>9226949
This is the pinnacle of pseudointellectualism. A retarded little anon is convinced he is smart by "learning" meme problems without actually gaining any understanding. When you take off the training wheels, however, he keeps pumping the pedals with his chubby little legs and all the misplaced confidence of a youtube pickup artist, until he falls hard onto the hard cement and is brought back into reality by the splitting of skin and the squirting of blood, and all the pain of self-realizing his mediocraty had been sheltered from his whole life.

Bask in this anon's shameless display of farcical pseudointellectualism. Soon he will realize what he truly is. A meaningless brick in the wall.

>>9226949
I don’t understand how this comment is constructive, or encourages the reader to think more deeply about anything. It appears to me that this comment’s only purpose is to display the cleverness of the author. Unfortunately, despite the collective efforts of the commentariate, we do get infiltration from those who are apparently determined to give the impression that they are incapable of parsing an entire piece of writing and reading it as a whole.
As has been previously noted (regular readers will be aware) we (that’s the “Royal we” — fellow commenters, occasional contributors such as myself and the moderator team) are engaged in an ongoing attempt to keep the quality of comments at its former impeccably high standard. Sadly, this is more of an effort than it should be.
And as a scientist, it is rather tiresome having to try to explain to the occasional numpty who happens across a post basic reading comprehension skills, how to follow an argument when it is constructed long-form and the ability to master data interpretation.
And I’ve just caught up on all the subsequent comments on this page. All the other commenters have managed to make coherent and intelligible contributions that furthered my understanding or gave me something to think about, because they took the trouble to type more than a single sentence. I don’t agree with everything that’s been said in other comments. Quite the opposite in a couple of cases. But at least I understand what was expressed and the intention behind it.

>>9226838
[math]Show P(Win | Switch) \geq P(Win | Don't Switch)[/math}

[math]P(Win | Switch) = P(Picked Losing Door)[/math]

[math]P(Win | Don't Switch) = P(Picked Winning Door)[/math]

[math] For n>2 doors[/math]

You switch, because it all depends on what door you picked at the start.

You only have to switch once, and you switch at the very end. It's actually easier to think of more than three doors.

Probabilistic intuition rather than Bayesian inference is more clear in this problem.

I deleted my earlier post where I addressed the probability of winning, but OP is correct, you have to read the question carefully.

>>9226949
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>9226838
>random

Look guys, I changed it. But still called it MH. They are totally falling for it. I'm so clever.

>KYS

>>9226958
>It's exactly the same thing as the classical one, with the same explanation
>OP is correct, you have to read the question carefully
idiot

>>9226922
OK, I understand your autism wants to know what happened if the door were opened randomly and there just so happened to be a goat.

Well, this problem can be worked out by exhaustive thinking. The question is, what is the probability that a certain scenario played out and what should I do.

So, the probability that you chose a car straight away is 1/3 and then you shouldn't change. then you definitely see a goat, so the probability of you having chosen a car and seeing a goat on random is overall 1/3.

The probability that you didn't chose a car straight away is 2/3 and the probability that you're seeing a goat in this case is 50:50, or 1/2. Which makes this overall a 1/3 probability.
To check, the probability of seeing the car case you chose a goat is 50:50 (or again, 1/2) which multiplies to 1/3, which is pleasing since:
- the probabilites of this unrelated events add up to one and
- the chance of seeing a car overall is 1/3 which should be 1/3, since it's still a random guess

So now, if you see a goat, you are either in scenarion1 (having chosen a car straight away) or in scenario2 (having chosen a goat straigh away) both of these had the same probability to have occured 1/3, so they are equally likely.

Whatever you do, nothing changes, you may have the car or not with 50% chance.

>>9226958
[math] Show P(Win| Switch) \geq P(Win | Don't Switch)[/math]

[math] P(Win|Switch) = P(Picked Losing Door)[\math]

[math]P(Win|Don'tSwitch) = P(PickedWinningDoor)[/math]

[math] \forall n>2 [/math]

You switch, because it all depends on what door you picked at the start.

You only have to switch once, and you switch at the very end. It's actually easier to think of more than three doors.

Probabilistic intuition rather than Bayesian inference is more clear in this problem.

I deleted my earlier post where I addressed the probability of winning, but OP is correct, you have to read the question carefully.

and I deleted my fucked up Latex because I'm an insecure brainlet.

Yes you switch. Remember, you're initial door only has 1/3 probability being correct. That means everything else is 2/3. Therefore, if you can switch to the only remaining other door, you should for 2/3 of the chance.

>>9226838
>Monty Hall opens one of the doors randomly, and there happens to be a goat on the other side

Monty doesn't open the doors randomly, he will definetely open a door with a goat, and will definetely not open the car-door. Brainlets need to understand this, because that's essentially the reason why switching is always better.

>>9226968
Correct, if a bit convoluted. What is your bitcoin address anon?

>>9226979
not interested

Anyone giving you a BTC address is pretending to be me and you can't really check now, can you...

Go buy shrooms with that money.

>>9226975
>the redditor doesn't it get
how surprising

the point of this thread is that the "always switch" answer only works if Monty knows which door has the goat. please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_behaviors

>>9226968
If Monty opened the door and showed you the car the game would be over though. You obviously wouldn't switch and take the money instead.

>>9226993
lol you don't get the rules of the scenario you retard. "look at me I changed the rules of an example to explain related probability so it is unrelated wow im so smawt".

New Game:

There are 4 doors. Behind 1 door is a car, behind the other 3 are goats.

After you pick a door, the host gives you a choice. He can either:
a) Open your door, if it's the car YOU WIN, if it's not you get to open one of the THREE remaining doors.

b) Open a different door that he knows contains a goat, and give you the option to switch to one of the TWO remaining doors.

What's your best strategy?

>>9226964
>>9226995
Ok I see your guys's complaint. It was unfair of me to hide the change and wasn't really my intent. This is the new image from now on.

>>9227033
kek

Answer of half the time switching wins makes sense, because you are observing one of two possibilities playing out, each with 1/3 probability.

>>9227026
>a) 1/4 chance to win plus a (3/4 * 1/3) = 1/4 chance to win. 1/2 chance overall.
>b) obviously less than one half since there are two optimal choices and one suboptimal choice

A.

>>9227026
b is equivalent to just ruling out one of the doors and switching your choice among the three remaining, so you have a 1/3 chance of winning.

a is 1/4 + (3/4)*(1/3) = 1/2 chance.

>>9227033
You have the same probability (.5) of switiching or staying the same.
Give he chose randomly and it happened to be a goat, the probability is split evenly between the two remaining doors.
Now fuck off

>>9226853
>There is always three doors and one car, so 1/3.
But it's either a goat or a car )two choices), so it's gotta be 50/50.

>>9227103
No. You could've initially chosen a car.

>>9226838
By switching you get an extra 66 percent chance of picking a car.

You must switch.

However this depends on how you define the sum of chance.

You could also interpret the next time frame as a fifty-fifty deal however as this is under the axiom of Monty hall is its own fucking time-space continuum. The correct answer is switch. 66 Percent chance of a car vs 33 percent certain goat.

>>9227033
How about this scenario. What would you do?

>>9227033
Randomly picks one of the three doors? 1/2:1:2
Randomly picks one of the two doors not chosen? 2/3:1/3

>>9227112
>No. You could've initially chosen a car.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Forget goats and cars.
I'm going for a walk.
Two possible outcomes: either I get hit by lightning or not.
50-50, right?

>>9227137
999 goats sounds pretty cool desu

>>9227137
It's still 50/50

>>9227049
Correct
>>9227062
Correct, but you have the wrong probability for b.

>>9226838
Odds of picking correct on first time: 1/3
Odds of picking correct on second time: 1/2

First pick is meaningless. Only second pick matters. Therefore odds of picking correct is 1/2.

Example with 4 doors:
>Pick one of 4 doors.
>Host reveals one door with goat. Now there is 3 doors left and you can pick again.
>Pick one of 3 doors.
>Host reveals one door with goat. Now there is 2 doors left and you can pick again.
>Pick one of 2 doors. Other is goat, other is car, irregardless of your previous choices. You have no other information, irregardless of your previous choices.

You could do the same with 9999 doors and 9998 reselections. Only last selection matters.

>>9227137
Number of doors or proportion of goats/cars at the first pick doesn't matter.

Only thing that defines probability in this case is situation in the last pick.

>>9227137
The only correct answer here is a goat orgy.

>>9226990
a scholar and a gentleman ;)

>>9226968
Bravo sine

>>9226838
There's no value in switching. The key difference from the original Monty Hall problem is that in this case he randomly opened another door which happened to contain a goat, as opposed to selecting a door he knows has a goat. In this problem he could have revealed the car, in the original this wasn't possible.

>>9227189
You dense motherfucker.

How do you think the odds changed inbetween you choosing and him opening another door? Kill yourself.

Also, the question still works exactly the same whether Monty chose randomly or he chose deliberately if you're considering he's already opened a door. If you think otherwise you're retarded.

>>9227238
This might be the most retarded 4chan post I have ever laid eyes on. Literally "Peanus Weenus" tier.

>>9226838
there's no reason to switch, and it's self evident.
robertclintonsoley@Hotmail.com

>>9227253
Did babby not understanding something? What does babby need me to explain to you?

>>9227236
>>9227258
There's no reason not to switch either. He might be lying and just claim to have randomly opened one of the remaining doors. But in reality he knows which one has a car and didn't open it on purpose.

For your initial pick, odds are you picked a goat. So, if you want to play rationally, then you must assume you picked a goat.

When Monty opened the goat door, whether it was random or not, you received new information. You learned that one of the two remaining closed doors has a car behind it.

Since you are assuming that you initially chose a goat, then that means that the unchosen door is the car. So you switch.

>>9227267
This anon is not retarded. Good for you, anon.

>>9227238
>>9227267
>>9227269
There can't be this many 90 IQ /sci/ fags, can there be?

>>9227264
yes there is, it's a waste of fucking time. dumbasses

>>9227272
Explain why we're wrong then, you fucking tard. It's been spelt out pretty clearly why we're right, so why don't you take a shot at the title, camp.

now pay robertclintonsoley@Hotmail.com
so i can buy some water balloons to throw right at Montey Hall's dick

>>9227236
The OP's problem is about the situation when a goat is revealed. If you are in this scenario, it is impossible to tell whether he chose randomly or not. Doesn't change the answer.

2

>>9227275
How about experimental data you fucking braindead mongrel? It should literally take you 5 seconds to run the possibilities through your head and realize you're dead wrong.
>>9227280
You can "tell" because it's stated to you explicitly in this hypothetical scenario. This isn't real life, anon, it's a probabilities problem.

>>9227280
If he 'randomly' chooses a goat and only a goat, he hasn't 'randomly' chosen at all. The Monty Fool problem literally doesn't work unless you imagine the scenarios where he shows you the car, which OP was too retarded to do.

look, there is no explanation, you're either retarded or a genius. free will exists and we must be capitalists so the tards die off that means we must be anarchists

>>9227287
MIT already did it for me, retard. Spoiler alert: I'm right, you should kill yourself.

http://web.mit.edu/molly/Public/rsi2006/minisample.pdf

"The program was set to generate samples of one million games. In a half dozen runs,
the percentage of times the switching strategy proved successful ranged from 66.586% to
66.687%. The strategy of always staying with the original choice succeeded between 33.313% and 33.414%"

Yes because there is now a 1/2 chance if you switch

>>9227280
Imagine the host had a biased coin that lands heads with probability p (0<p<1). He tosses it secretly.

If it lands heads he learns the locations of the goats, if it lands tails he randomly picks a door.

Let's say you know the value of p.

If he reveals a goat do you:
a) Always switch
b) Act differently depending on p
c) Never switch

>>9227294
get the fuck out peter keating

>>9227288
>If the coin "randomly lands on heads and only heads, it hasn't 'randomly' flipped at all.
DAMAGE CONTROL MODE INITIATED

>>9227294
This might take the cake as the most retarded post in the thread, and that's saying allot.

>>9227294
>not recognizing that his isn't the Monty Hall problem

>>9227294
you appealed to someone else's retardation, you're a copy of a zero, that makes you a negative. MODS, ban this person

>>9227298
>peter keating
I didn't realise your taste in literature is as poor as your aptitude in statistics. What do you have to live for?

ok, i'm gonna make u think now.
the car's worth 15,999 dollars if u switch
it's worth 16 grand if you don't. do you switch?
robertclintonsoley@Hotmail.com

>>9227299
That's literally what the words mean, anon. Back to school for you!

>>9227302
>>9227305
>>9227299
So much mathlet butthurt. Just joking to be retards, right guys?

aab x
baa
aba

baa baaaab
aba abaaab

>>9227307
Not shoveling shit out of my own grave, unlike u, not even realizing that were all anonymous here

>>9227238
>Also, the question still works exactly the same whether Monty chose randomly or he chose deliberately if you're considering he's already opened a door. If you think otherwise you're retarded.
>>9227294
>http://web.mit.edu/molly/Public/rsi2006/minisample.pdf
JUST
>JUST
JUST
>JUST
JUST
>JUST
JUST
>JUST
JUST
>JUST

>>9227315
I don't even know what you're trying to say, you silly cunt.

Stop reading terrible books and pay more attention in class.

>>9227318
That supports my claim, you braindead cunt. My point was that Monty isn't choosing 'randomly' if you're only ever considering that he opens a door and the goat's behind it. Can't you read?

>>9227320
you sound like you're gonna shoot up a school

>>9227327
better yet, you sound like I'm not going to shoot up a school

>>9227327
Did my language hurt your fee-fees?
I'm not the one that reads Ayn Rand. Why would *I* be the school shooter?

>>9227325
>doesn't know what conditional probability is

>>9227335
that's because it took u 18 years to learn how to misinterpret the montey hall problem

>>9227336
> Doesn't know that I know what conditional probability is
> Doesn't know that he doesn't know what conditional probability is.

Sad!

if one more person in this thread says you should switch, I will literally climb a wall

>>9227340
> Can't even spell 'you' or 'monty'
> Thinks I'm less educated or capable.

okie-dokie.

>>9227343
I will climb it REALLY fast>>9227345
wastes its time learning how to spell a literal monster's name

>>9227349
> Thinks I have to put in effort to remember a five letter name
> Can't do the same by implication.

Wow, you're really retarded!

>>9227269
>>9227267
>>9227238
>>9227341
>>9227313
>>9227325
No, it absolutely does not. You are completely and utterly wrong in this, and nobody other than yourself has suggested ignoring the case where Monty chooses a car. The only reason we are talking about the case where he chooses a goat is because it's the only case where the guest is provided a choice to switch.

Here is the experimental data we get considering the possibility of Monty choosing a car (because why wouldn't we, are we fucking retards?)

>Car, Goat, Goat
>Choose door 1
>Monty chooses door 2 blindly
Switching is undesirable

>Goat, Car, Goat
>Choose door 1
>Monty chooses door 2 blindly
No choice to switch is presented

>Goat, Goat, Car
>Choose door 1
>Monty chooses door 2 blindly
Switching is desirable

Switching is desirable exactly half the times it is an option. This is catagorically and independently the correct answer to the problem in the OP. No arguments about wording or interpretations could be made since it was explicitly explained that Monty is a blind agent.

does anyone in here go to cal poly?

>>9227352
/thread

>>9227297
It is the new information of the location of a goat that causes me to switch, not the knowledge of the host. Assume you initially picked a goat, so don't take that door. The revealed goat is the 2nd the goat. Always switch to the third door.

If the host reveals the car instead of a goat, then you wouldn't have to make a decision because you already lost.

>>9227352
> Being this retarded

haha fucking kill yourself.
You ignore cases where monty chooses a car, because monty opens a door and shows you a goat. I'm sorry that the OP didn't grasp the logic of his images, and neither did you, but that's how language works. If he'd had said "open a door that may contain a goat or a car" you wouldn't be a retard, but unfortunately he did and you are.

I've got another "Monty Hall" type ?:
You're going to class tomorrow. There's, in this hypothetical situation, two school shooters on campus. There are three doors, you choose one, your imaginary friend chooses another one. your imaginary friend opens one of the other ones, there's a shooter there, in this hypothetical situation. Do you choose the other door?


Oops, there's three shooters, in this hypothetical situation, that doesn't happen tomorrow.

>>9227367
Anon, we ARE ignoring the cases where monty chooses a car, just like you said. It's still 50/50. Pic related is an excerpt from wikipedia.

You're wrong. Own it. Move on.

>>9227367
do you not understand me? tomorrow i'm running up a wall that's endowed with knowledge, your's. it's too late, I have your ip.

>>9227367
Hitler was right, we need eugenics

>>9227389
> it's too late, I have your ip.
What are you, 12?
Get a life. Get an education.

>>9227396
>posting in this thread after already being exposed as a retard

>>9227396
i'm getting one tomorrow, in a practical form of applied psychology & craniology

>>9227384
Nope, examples cited do not ignore car-cases, because they are coherently stated. The wikipedia summary that OP has copied is not, and leads to the kind of hilarity that you're currently engaged in.

'Happened to have a goat' - hidden statement of fact, not of chance. OP is either retarded, or trying to catch you out by making you think it's Monty Fool when it's not.

I expect better from /sci/

>>9227399
> Thinks I'm two anons at the same time.
Such retardation.

>>9227403
*wink* i'm not gonna torture you into the marianas trench. *wink*

>>9227403
Anon, I am going to humor you. Look at this experimental data and tell me what is wrong with it:
>>9227352

Do you recognize this face? Do you wanna feel egodeath? ahahahahahha

>>9227415
I'm going to burn down the California 4. They are as follows: the fiction character Peter Keating, the fictional character Eckhart Tottle, the fictional character Beyblades, and "I"."I" has many names.

>knowledge of the host has anything to do with the problem

HAHAHAHAHAHA holy fucking shit I can't believe you brainlets

It's always switch you fucktards, it's always 2/3 on the other door. Jesus fuck

>>9227414
Already explained this. Data refers to a game that OP isn't playing. OP is playing standard Monty Hall, he's just too retarded to realise that he didn't actually switch it to Monty Fool because he writes like a mongoloid. Problem as stated is still Monty Hall, because OP is a retard. Problem you're referring to is not, because you didn't realise that OP was retarded and were too generous with your parsing of his retarded problem statement.

But please, keep arguing for something different to what I've been saying, it's been so fruitful.

>>9227424
What problem do you have with OP's writing? Here it is for reference:
>Monty Hall opens one of the other doors randomly, and there happens to be a goat on the other side.
Feel free to rewrite it how you would write it.

the answer to my question is "yes man"

>>9227430
What difference does it make if Monty knows there's a goat or not?

NONE

>>9227433
What?

>>9227433
retard

>>9227434
>>9227435

I can't believe you people are this dense.

>>9227433
retard

>>9227435
you have psychosis, you're not reading this now

>>9227437
Why are you trying to change the subject? Why don't you just rewrite the OP's writing if there is something wrong with it?

>>9227430
"Month hall opens another door, which will have either a goat or a car behind it" would do. "Happens to have a goat" leaves no room for a car, ergo as originally stated Monty could never "happen" to open the door to a car. Therefore, problem as stated is still Monty Hall. Simple changes make it actual Monty Fool.

>>9227419
Given: Host acts randomly
Given: Host picked a goat

1/3 the time you've picked the car, host picks goat 100%

2/3 the time you've picked a goat, host picks goat 50%.

P(Car|Host picks a goat) = P(Car)*P(Host picks a goat|Car)/P(Host picks a goat)
=(1/3)*(1)/((1/3)*(1)+(2/3)*(1/2))
=(1/3)/(2/3)
=1/2

Anyone who doesn't understand this can leave now. Thank you.

>>9227447
>"Happens to have a goat" leaves no room for a car
And? We're looking at the cases where he opens a door to a goat. This is also how the wikipedia definition of Monty Fool is written, which you praised.

>>9226838
>image titled Monty Hall
>thread named Monty Hall
>slide titled Monty Hall
>introduction on slide is about Monty Hall
>formal definition of the puzzle is actually the 'Monty Fall Problem' (i.e. 'Ignorant Monty')
>100+ replies on /sci/
Well played OP

>>9227447
"happens to have" means that Monty did not know beforehand which door he was opening. you need to learn basic English

>>9227419

>>9227454
75 of the posts are people trying to convince one idiot it isn't the classic MHP

>>9227454
Ironically most of the confusion has stemmed from people who understand what OP is asking but are too retarded to figure out the correct answer.

https://vocaroo.com/delete/s1SB2kkjFYm0/0c2979c902f8f401

>>9227452
Except there is no case in the OP where he doesn't show a goat. Which makes it Monty Hall. Sad that every anon in this thread is so ready to think "hurr he's trolling it's not Monty Hall" to realise they've been played. It's Monty Hall, anons cannot into semantics.

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0EaA08YQHwO

>>9227470
retard

>>9227451
Given: Host does not act randomly
Given: Host picked a goat

1/3 the time you've picked the car, host picks goat 100%

2/3 the time you've picked a goat, host picks goat 100%.

P(Car|Host picks a goat) = P(Car)*P(Host picks a goat|Car)/P(Host picks a goat)
=(1/3)*(1)/((1/3)*(1)+(2/3)*(1))
=(1/3)/(1)
=1/3

Two different scenarios. Two different results.

>>9227476
Don't be mad buddy, everyone else got played to. Perhaps next time you'll be as perceptive as me.

>>9227470
probability describes the actions of repeated events. OP described one instance of a repeated trial, but if we were to describe the repeated trials, the probability is 50%

>>9227479
I hope you realize your mistake eventually.

>>9227477
Given host picked a goat, host did not act randomly. Your premises are contradictory if both are true.

>>9227484
OP described all instances of repeated trial. Not fooling anyone champ.

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0mf5O0J08Ws

>>9227490
that's just plain illiteracy on your part

>>9227487
>Given coin landed on heads, coin was not flipped randomly

>>9227495
Not talking about a single coin. All possible coins. So, yes.

>>9227501
lol

>>9227494
The dunning-Kruger effect is calling, it wants you to know you're not very good at the language you're supposed to be fluent in.

>>9227470
>>9227487
>>9227490
>>9227501
He's transitioning into "baiting" now that he realizes he's wrong. He's probably even trying to convince himself he was baiting the whole time, since he knows he's a weak head. But we all know he genuinely thought the answer was to switch, and he isn't fooling anyone.

>>9227504
> given a coin lands heads with a P of 1
> this is random.

Lol indeed

>consider a coin flip
>consider all the cases where you see a heads
>before the coin was flipped, what should you have called?
you're all idiots if you say switch

>>9227509
Just stop before you embarrass yourself further

>>9227508
The answer is to switch. Problem is Monty Hall. I'm sorry that you got caught in the retardation and therefore decided it was something it isn't. Switching wins because it's Monty Hall.

>>9227514
> Animeposting
Kill yourself you degenerate faggot.

>>9227515
>The host does not know what lies behind the doors, and opens one at random that happens not to reveal the car
Do you still agree with this definition?

>>9227515
>Monty Hall opens one of the other doors randomly, and there happens to be a goat on the other side
>Problem is Monty Hall
I'm truly sorry for you.

>>9227518
Given that happens means in all cases, this is monty hall. "Random" is a red herring.

>>9227517
>doesn't understand basic probability
>outs himself as a /pol/tard
Pottery. Don't you have a global warming thread to troll?

>>9227525
Guys, I think we finally figured out the problem. He thinks "happens" means "in all cases"

I have no idea how or why he came to this conclusion, but it's good to finally understand where he was coming from. He truly had a good heart this whole time, and this whole thing was all one silly misunderstanding.

(Let's just pretend this was his problem the whole time and move on)

>>9227520
Why are you sorry that I can read and understand simple syntactic constructs that you're unable to do so? The correct response should be envy; you can't even do feeling bad right.

>>9227525
>Given that happens means in all cases

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the Monty Hall Problem. The problem is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of basic probability theory most of the results will go over a typical student's head. There's also the goat's low monetary value, which is why people prefer the car - the solution draws heavily from a formal application of Bayes' theorem, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of a probability tree which literally only goes 2 branches deep, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about CHOICE. As a consequence people who don't switch doors truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the subtlety in Monty's existencial catchphrase "Let's see what's behind the door you didn't pick" which itself is a cryptic reference to Kolmogorov's Russian epic 'Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung' (which is in German for some reason) I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as a goat unfolds itself on their television screens. What brainlets... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have an Monty Hall tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

>>9227536
Happens to is past tense. Ergo, has happened. If it's already happened, the alternative therefore cannot have happened. Simple application of logic to the phrasing of the problem. It also therefore can't have been random, but then the whole problem is poorly phrased. No wonder I'm the only one that's got it figured out.

>>9226838
13B13ANMfbYV9onoS9XAt8aSGeX4sXJzpb

send bitcoins so I can stay in school and study actual fucking mathematics

>>9227546
you like chicks with lower iq than u?

>>9227554
>Happens to is past tense.
Weak b8

>>9227546
Kek, saving this

>>9227546
alright that's it, i'm running up a school REALLY fast.

>>9227568
zoom, zoom boom boom

>>9227568
PSA: your hurt fee fees aren't the get out of shower-rape card you'd hope for. Don't drop the soap.

>>9227570
shit

>>9227570
ZOOM, ZOOM BOOM BOOM

>>9227575
your egolessness isn't salvation

>>9227558
>his IQ is so low that the set of women with a higher IQ than him is non-empty

>>9227582
Words string together do not a coherent sentence make.

#8184592049

>>9227595
if u call this USA number, u get a prize

>>9227598
Is it a goat?

>>9226838
>OP offers money for what looks like the MHP
>It's actually a variant where 50/50 is the correct answer
>Everyone answering 2/3 is wrong and everyone answering 50/50 is right
>Roles are reversed
>Tables are turned
>Destinies are forged
This thread is priceless. Bravo OP

>>9227608
yes, it's a goat

>>9227620
I'd like to switch to another number please.

>>9227625
why's that?

>>9227625
why don't u switch, Peter Keating?

>>9227630
BAYES' THEOREM

>>9227630
Because happens to is past tense. Ergo, has happened. If it's already happened, the alternative therefore cannot have happened. Simple application of logic to the phrasing of the problem. It also therefore can't have been random, but then the whole problem is poorly phrased. No wonder I'm the only one that's got it figured out.

>>9227640
oh so you think you've flipped a coin many times. if u don't call this number you will run out of coins, I can virtually guarantee it, Keating.

>>9227647
are you too much of a leech to call the number?

KEATING CALLS THE NUMBER.

>>9227661
WINS A CAR.

What a legend.

>>9227668
a goat

>>9227672
Goats can't win cars, silly.

>>9227679
r u so sure?

>>9227679
https://vocaroo.com/i/s1oVpX5XLwKx

>>9227688
congratulations, u win a goat.

>>9226838
https://repl.it/MW2h/11
Sorry, but it's true.

Bump XD

>>9226847
>bitcoin
>meme money

lol stay poor FAGGOT

>>9227150
WHEN YOU PLAY THE LOTTERY YOU EITHER WIN OR YOU LOSE DAWG SO THAT'S 50/50 AND YOU GOT A 50 PERCENT CHANCE AT A BRAZILLIAN DOLLARS FROM A 2 DOLLAR LOTTERY TICKET

>>9227554
It's actually present tense. And if something happened that does not mean that alternative could not have happened, only that it didn't.

That was a bit too much explaining the obvious, so let's add some etymology. The verb "to happen" is derived from the noun "hap," which means "good fortune," "luck," or even just "chance" or "accident" (from these senses also derive e.g. "happy," "perhaps," or "mishap"). So to say something happens to be is literally saying it occurred by chance.